Introduction

The Intel Core i9 9990XE 14-core CPU is a special, OEM-only, no warranty processor that only select system manufacturers like Puget Systems has access to via a once-per-quarter auction. While that means that availability and pricing may end up being highly fluid, the capabilities of this processor should (on paper at least) be second to none. This is not a product for the masses, but rather a niche offering for those looking to get the absolute best of the best Intel processor.

While specs alone are not a perfect representation of performance (especially across different product families), there are a few interesting things to point out about this CPU before getting into our Lightroom Classic testing. First, it has a max Turbo Boost frequency of 5.1 GHz which means that it should perform much better than any other Intel X-series CPU in lightly threaded applications like Photoshop and many parts of Lightroom. At the same time, even if you are using all the cores, the Turbo Boost frequency only drops to 5.0 GHz which theoretically puts it at about the same performance as the Intel Core i9 9980XE in highly parallel applications. On paper, this makes the i9 9990XE a bit of a golden CPU that should match or beat any other Intel consumer or enthusiast processor regardless of the application.

In order to achieve this feat, however, this CPU draws about 50% more power than any other X-series CPU. While this obviously means that you need a beefy CPU cooling setup, you also need to have a motherboard and power supply that can provide said power.

Core i9 9990XE

Core i9 9980XE

Core i9 9940X

Core i9 9900K

# of Cores

14

18

14

8

Base clock

4.0 GHz

3.3 GHz

3.0 GHz

3.6 GHz

Max Turbo Boost

5.1 GHz

4.5 GHz

4.5 GHz

5.0 GHz

All-Core Turbo Boost

5.0 GHz

4.1 GHz

3.8 GHz

4.7 GHz

TDP

255 W

165 W

165 W

95 W

MSRP

Auction

$1,999

$1,399

$499

In this article, we are going to take a look at how the Intel Core i9 9990XE stacks up against the other Intel X-series CPUs as well as against the Intel Core i9 9900K which is currently the king of single-threaded performance. We also have a number of other articles available looking at the performance of the i9 9990XE in a range of other applications that you can view by filtering our recent articles to just show the ones about Processors.

If you would like to skip over our test setup and benchmark result/analysis sections, feel free to jump right to the Conclusion section.

Test Setup & Methodology

Listed below are the systems we will be using in our Photoshop CC 2019 testing:

To thoroughly test each processor, we will be using Lightroom Classic CC 2019 (Ver. 8.1) with two sets of images: one set of 22MP.CR2 RAW images taken on a Canon EOS 5D Mark III and a set of 45MB .NEF RAW images taken on a Nikon D850.

A big thank you toChris Shreve for helping get us these images to test!

While our Lightroom testing is still evolving, we are currently able to accurately benchmark the following tasks with both sets of images:

Bulk Tasks

Import

Export to JPEG

Build Smart Previews

Convert to DNG

Module Tasks

Library Module Loupe Scroll

Develop Module Loupe Scroll

Library to Develop switch

Photomerge

Panorama Merge

HDR Merge

Benchmark Results

While our benchmark presents various scores based on the performance of each type of task, we also wanted to provide the individual results in case there is a specific task someone may be interested in. Feel free to skip to the next section for our analysis of these results.

Benchmark Analysis

In our Lightroom Classic benchmark, our tests are divided into three categories: Module Tasks (scrolling through images & switching modules), Bulk Tasks (importing, exporting, generating previews, etc.), and Photo Merge. In addition, there is an Overall Score which is simply the average of the three sub-scores. The scores shown in the charts above are relative to the best possible performance for each task when using a Core i7 8700K CPU along with a NVIDIA GTX 1080 Ti 8GB in Lightroom Classic CC 2018. In essence, a score of "900" would mean that it gave 90% the performance of the reference system while a score of "1100" would mean it was 10% faster.

If we sort by the overall score, you can see that the Intel Core i9 9990XE's does very well, scoring about 6% faster than the other Intel X-series CPUs or about 11% higher than the Intel Core i9 9900K. However, it is very important to pay attention to the scores for the individual categories since most people value speed and responsiveness when working in the library/develop modules rather than exporting or generating previews.

In the case of the i9 9990XE, it does very well for bulk tasks like exporting and generating previews due to its high multi-core performance. In addition, it also does very well for photomerge which tends to be more single-threaded. Unfortunately, just like the other X-series CPUs it can't quite keep up with the i9 9900K in our "module tasks" benchmarks. Since this is the area we most often hear our customers wanting the best performance, that is a bit of a mark against the X-series CPUs in general - including the i9 9990XE.

Is the Intel Core i9 9990XE good for Lightroom Classic CC 2019?

While the Intel Core i9 9990XE achieved a higher overall benchmark score in Lightroom Classic than any other CPU we tested, that doesn't mean it is an automatic pick even assuming you can get your hands on it. If creating previews or panoramas is a big deal for you, this processor is excellent. If you care more about performance when navigating and using the library and develop modules, however, the Core i9 9900K is still a bit faster - not to mention much more affordable.

Because of the fairly standard performance in our Module tests, the i9 9990XE is definitely more of a luxury item for Lightroom Classic rather than something you should really try to get your hands on. There are likely a number of users who will desire the higher preview generation performance, but most users will likely have a better experience sticking with a Core i9 9900K and spending the large cost savings on more RAM, faster/larger storage drives, or other system improvements.

With the very limited availability and power/cooling requirements of this CPU, there is no question that the i9 9990XE is a very niche product. The fact that only select OEMs can even get their hands on it should be an obvious indication that Intel doesn't intend for this processor to be used by mainstream users. This is intended for those who want the best of the best processor, no matter the hurdles they have to jump through in order to get it. And the fact is, this really is one of the highest performing all-around processors available right now.

Tagged

Subscribe

Hi guys,Just wondering about the discrepancies in the 9920x results between the 8.0 benchmark and this 8.1 benchmark. The 9920x was previously the #2 overall performer behind the 9900x, and now it's dropped behind even the 9900k? This seems like a suspiciously large change in performance compared to the change in scores of the 9940x, 9960x, and 9980x between benchmarks. Can you confirm this result? -Thanks

Things shift around a bit from version to version, and even Windows updates can alter the results. That said, I'm pretty sure the main difference in the results is from the module tests. To be honest, that is probably one of the most inconsistent tests since it is trying measure things that take a fraction of a second. Any sort of background task that decides to do something can throw off those results extremely easily. We try to combat that as much as we can by running those tests hundreds of times and taking the average, but even then it can fluctuate a bit.

To be honest, I'm temped to just remove those tests altogether. Unfortunately, what it tests (scrolling through images and switching between modules) is some of the most requested kinds of testing we get asked for. Right now I'm of the mind that any information is better than no information, but I'm still trying to tweak things to make the results more reliable.

Posted on 2019-02-11 21:12:21

Galen Brown

That makes sense, and good luck with the tweaks. Thanks for taking the time to respond Matt, I appreciate it.